Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 424 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 13 of 17 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Orac #47649 01/17/13 02:37 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
The problem here is classic phsyics actually thinks that you get real world moving ball and a stationary ball collisions in which one or both arent actually spinning wake up people the classic type collissions would be extremely rare in real life.




this happens in real life.

in classic physics you can include the spin of a ball and that
spin will cause a stationary ball to both move and spin and
the impacting ball can also have movement and a spin.

you just haven't seen it yet.
the degree of spin would depend on many factors but it is
calculable.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Orac #47650 01/17/13 02:50 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac

1.) A field is something that is present everywhere in space and time .... Proof?

There are obvious problems with this statement a farady cage was invented in 1836


Just for clarification, I would like to come back to this point.

Are you saying that a faraday cage blocks the electromagnetic field?

If so, how can we be sure that it blocks the field, rather than just blocking disturbances in the field?


There never was nothing.
paul #47651 01/17/13 03:03 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
That is a good example Paul that shows the sorts of things that happen and so why do you insist on energy being a difference rather than an exchange?

What is really happening is because classic physics usually deals with big macro objects they can ignore certains things and build a broad picture and that broad picture leads to the conclusion of directionality.

What gets forgotten is when you get down really small you can't just ignore or approximate away things.

So QM correctly views all energy exchanges as bi-directional it is the safest and generic assumption and would match any and all real world situations.

To illustrate the point you don't get more one way than radio-active decay yet classic physics and it's one way view would not realise the reverse process call alpha-process exists why would it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process

The process is incredibly rare and unlikely and yet it has been proven to be calculatable odds and experimentally confirmed.

Even in chemistry I have seen teachers still teach reactions are irreversible which is garbage and been known to be garbage since the 1800's and definitely since QM was founded.

Hopefully all science teachers now days teaching beyond very young children teach all chemical reactions are reversible just the reverse may be incredibly unlikely and in modern chemistry it is called chemical equilibrium

http://www.wavesignal.com/o_chem/Equil.htm

Quote:

The ratio of reaction rate constants for the forward and reverse reactions is equivalent to the equilibrium constant for the net or overall reaction.

In general, reactions which liberate heat are characterized by products which have a more stable chemical configuration, or lower energy. Since nature favors lower energy configurations, exothermic processes are generally spontaneous and favor reaction products. Such reactions are typically characterized by a larger equilibrium constant as follows:

Products favored: K >> 1

Alternatively, endothermic processes absorb heat energy during the reaction. Thus, they are typically characterized by products which have a less stable chemical configuration, or higher energy. Thus, endothermic processes generally favor reactants, and are extremely sluggish in the absence of a catalyst. Such reactions are typically characterized by a smaller equilibrium constant as follows:

Reactants favored: K << 1


To show absolute proof QM set a specific task perfected and demonstrated in 2006 that you can use a laserbeam with QM properties to change the reversal rate of a chemical reaction

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2006/oct/13/laser-controls-chemical-reaction-rates

It has been done on hundred of reactions and is standard technique now in advanced chemistry and all reactions are reversible is considered absolute.

Last year the process was taken to a whole new level of single atom to single atom chemistry

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-chemical-reactions-individual-atoms.html

So I have no problem if you as a layman wants one direction but for a science level of Rede no one direction is a crass and horrible simplification.

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/13 05:12 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #47652 01/17/13 03:12 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Are you saying that a faraday cage blocks the electromagnetic field?

If so, how can we be sure that it blocks the field, rather than just blocking disturbances in the field?


Nope if transfers the field around and area of spacetime the same process is being used to build cloaking devices use QM.

Cloaking devices are using the same trick as a faraday cage just on other QM properties not the EM and the faraday cage was never actually understood in it's day as to why it created and electromagnetic shield.

You can cloak any object based on a QM property by transferring that property out at one boundary and back again at the next effectively cloaking in between the two boundaries.

In short you can cloak any QM property but you can not cloak all simultaneously to make an area of nothing the laws of QM conservation stop that happening smile

Background:
http://phys.org/news107011336.html

Light cloak:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110727121651.htm

Magnetic cloak:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/magnetic-invisibility-cloak/

Heat Cloak:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326133516.htm

Plasmonic Cloak:
http://www.iopblog.org/scientists-create-freestanding-3d-cloak/

Time cloak:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/74116.html

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/13 04:18 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #47655 01/17/13 05:42 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
In view of the response, I'm not about to let this pass:

Perhaps, Orac, you would care to tell us, in QM terms if necessary, how energy from the sun's nuclear fusion is exchanged* rather that transferred* to, for example, Earth.

* the two terms are not interchangeable, they have clear and specific meanings


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Actually even in that case although you probaly dont realise it the energy is exchange because the earth has an albedo that it reflects the suns own energy back to the sun in a delayed fashion.

Earth also emits IR raditaion and has a completely different wavelength to the sun so in the IR wavelength you could view earth as the emitter and the sun as the reciever.

Both of those effects utimately will play some very tiny part in the solar sun cycle along with planet gravity and a pile of other effects are definitely more important but all of those ultimately effect the rate of fussion occuring in the sun.

Is it important probably not and at a classic level you can ignore it and granted the scale of the exchanges are massively different but energy is almost certainly EXCHANGED to deny so is to deny the basic science involved.

So perhaps Rede you should have let it pass and I mean that in a polite kind way, and I repeat it is very difficult to find a one way transfer in science smile

Thus ends the memo for today.

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/13 10:59 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #47657 01/17/13 11:39 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I thought long and hard whether I want to discuss this because I do not want to antagonise Paul and so Paul if you want to discuss this create a new thread and I am happy to discuss.

Rede to show you how seemingly minor incredibly unlikely reversals of energy can be you only have to look at life in the universe under big bang theory and the triple-alpha process.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process


Ethan Seigel did a really good article on this recently

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/02/what-we-learn-just-by-being-here/


If you believe in the big bang theory as opposed to a god in creating life then your entire belief is hanging on the most unlikely reversal process in nuclear physics.



I should also add in an unsolved mystery in the field of nuclear physics which was initially blamed on experimental error but has been ruled out

http://phys.org/news202456660.html

=> A team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities has found that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in synch with the rotation of the sun's core.

There is now a second study showing the exact same thing.

Best guess is this is most likely going to be one of those weird highly unlikely QM reversals we are talking about otherwise it's completely new physics and is every crackpots dream.

Lubos Motl has put a reasonable discussion on it and I agree you can rule out a new particle for his exact same logic

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/sunlight-or-neutrinos-affect-radon.html

Originally Posted By: Lubos

However, it seems much more plausible that the effect results from the influence of well-known types of particles. In particle, the gamma-ray events they observe don't have to be pure decays (processes with 1 particle in the initial state). They may be collisions, either with some photons or with neutrinos (or, for the sake of completeness, a new particle species) coming from the Sun.

Let me emphasize that if an additional incoming particle plays a role, it's a big mistake to call it the observation of gamma decay! Collisions are not "decay". From a microscopic or fundamental viewpoint, it's also nonsensical to declare the temperature as the driver of the variations: temperature is just a statistical description of energy randomly stored in every degree of freedom but to explain a particular nuclear reaction, we should still be able to see which degree of freedom probably which field or which particle showed its muscles.


It's a big if but if proven redenewur is that link good enough to show you the dangers of assuming one directionality.

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/13 12:26 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #47658 01/17/13 02:55 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Actually even in that case although you probaly dont realise it the energy is exchange because the earth has an albedo that it reflects the suns own energy back to the sun in a delayed fashion.

Earth also emits IR raditaion and has a completely different wavelength to the sun so in the IR wavelength you could view earth as the emitter and the sun as the reciever.

Both of those effects utimately will play some very tiny part in the solar sun cycle along with planet gravity and a pile of other effects are definitely more important but all of those ultimately effect the rate of fussion occuring in the sun.


that is a reflection orac.

I dont think your going to have a lot of luck here with
that type of reasoning , its as if you have a soft lead hammer
and your trying to forge cold hard steel.

if I shine a flashlight at my mirror.

1) does the mirror exchange energy with the flashlight?

2) if so , can you calculate where all the energy came from?

3) would you find that all the energy came from the flashlight?

4) if any energy came from the mirror , can you describe that please?

Quote:
I thought long and hard whether I want to discuss this because I do not want to antagonise Paul and so Paul if you want to discuss this create a new thread and I am happy to discuss.


I'm not getting upset , I'm only trying to make some sense of
the way QM describes things.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #47659 01/17/13 04:34 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul again you are making everything pure and it leads you to the wrong conclusion the example you gave is another text book contrived result which does not respresent the real world example we are talking about.

I am going to contrive an answer to your torch problem by saying the mirror is most likely silver backed and thus has a radioactive decay. The radioactive decay from the mirror is thus providing energy back to the bulb and that decay is possibly affected by light hitting the mirror.

What we are getting here is unnatural or human engineered processes are designed to go one way and they may be very close to perfect but there is usually some concievable way the process can reverse if incredibly unlikely. Your torch and mirror is indeed an example of a very tough one but I have a contrived answer you would need to disprove and thats the thing it is safest to assume everything can be reversed.

The sun reflection one is far easier to show. Any earth reflection will be some weird mix hence its albedo and thus the returning light energy is very different to that which stuck the earth ... its different in colour and composition and you can't talk your way around that >>>> THE REFLECTED LIGHT IS DIFFERENT PERIOD <<<<.

This is what the reflective spectrum of the earth looks like

http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/Palle_2009_earth_transm.pdf

Quote:

As we get closer to finding analogues of Earth, an important
consideration for the characterization of extrasolar planetary atmospheres is what the transmission spectrum of our planet looks like. Here we report the optical and near-infrared transmission spectrum of the Earth, obtained during a lunar eclipse. Some biologically relevant atmospheric features that are weak in the reflection spectrum (such as ozone,molecular oxygen, water, carbon dioxide and methane) are much stronger in the transmission spectrum, and indeed stronger than predicted by modelling


This means that there is the hugely remote possibility that the tiny tiny returned energy can affect things and you can not exclude it because it takes very little of a catalyst to make things very different in reactions.

No one has ever got a nuclear fussion reactor going here on earth to experiment with so there is no way to know what it is sensitive to.

What I can tell you is that we have done experiments with Muon-catalyzed fusion in the 80's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

Quote:

It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions.


So what I can tell you is injecting small amounts of muons into the sun it may make life very interesting.

So if our reflected light somehow changed muon rate in the sun or the muons arriving into the sun from cosmic rays I am pretty sure you are going to notice a difference.

We know almost nothing about the sun yet I can still easily give you a way a very minor energy change can cause a problem and why you need to consider exchanges as exchanges at science levels.

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/13 07:28 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #47660 01/17/13 08:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Time Out!
What I see here is a semantic problem. I assume that Orac is using 'exchange' in the way that he has been hearing/seeing it used in the QM community. Paul and redewenur are trying to use it in a 'pure english' way. One problem with that is that English is not pure.

Quote:
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary.

James Nicoll (b. 1961), "The King's English", rec.arts.sf-lovers, 15 May 1990

I suggest that we declare a truce. Possibly we could use some other word which doesn't have as much baggage with it. I expect that 'transfer' would work. Transfer doesn't have any connotations as to just how the transfer is occurring. This would require that everybody automatically accept that if the world transfer is used where they would expect 'exchange' they assume that is what is meant. And when others see 'exchange' they would think transfer. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. We could work out just what is involved in the concept in a different thread. After all it seems to me that we are going to lose track of what Bill S. started out looking for by going on with the way this discussion is being diverted into semantics.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #47661 01/17/13 08:59 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
but the problem isn't the words used it is the definition
of the words.

and if we interchange "exchange" with "transfer" then nothing is
really accomplished because QM and orac still would consider
the definition as being the same as their current definition
of "exchange".

lets call it an energy "flip flop" because it more clearly
defines the event , a change in spin direction or sign polarity.

if I'm right about that.

I'm not sure why we cant just use momentum for the spin and
polarity for the sign.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill #47662 01/17/13 09:05 PM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: Bill
Time Out!
What I see here is a semantic problem. I assume that Orac is using 'exchange' in the way that he has been hearing/seeing it used in the QM community. Paul and redewenur are trying to use it in a 'pure english' way. One problem with that is that English is not pure.

Quote:
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary.

James Nicoll (b. 1961), "The King's English", rec.arts.sf-lovers, 15 May 1990

I suggest that we declare a truce. Possibly we could use some other word which doesn't have as much baggage with it. I expect that 'transfer' would work. Transfer doesn't have any connotations as to just how the transfer is occurring. This would require that everybody automatically accept that if the world transfer is used where they would expect 'exchange' they assume that is what is meant. And when others see 'exchange' they would think transfer. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. We could work out just what is involved in the concept in a different thread. After all it seems to me that we are going to lose track of what Bill S. started out looking for by going on with the way this discussion is being diverted into semantics.

Bill Gill


Now that's a more concise and eloquent way of putting it. Much better than my 'seems generic' babble.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. "Lost in translation", as it were.

Last edited by Neohippy; 01/17/13 09:11 PM.

Laziness breeds innovation
Orac #47663 01/17/13 09:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I am going to contrive an answer to your torch problem by saying the mirror is most likely silver backed and thus has a radioactive decay.


no.

radioactive decay is not activated by light from a flashlight.

Quote:
What we are getting here is unnatural or human engineered processes


are you saying that QM only holds true in natural
processes and events?

at one time you said that QM would be wrong if there was a event or exchange that was found to be one way.

it seems that using the sun and the earth is far more
complicated than using a simple mirror and flashlight
why would you rather use the sun and the earth instead
when the more simple examples are easier to follow.

I would think that if QM is correct it would not be
bound to natural events and if it is then why do we bother
with it.

in other words what is our purpose for studying QM if we
cant apply QM to what we build.

Quote:
the example you gave is another text book contrived result which does not respresent the real world example we are talking about


I'm not contriving to destroy QM as I have already made it
clear that I am only trying to understand QM.

we know that a flashlight produces light
and
we know that a mirror reflects light

that is why we make them.

the flashlight requires energy
the mirror does not require energy.

so if we measure the energy of the light before it enters
the mirror we find it has a distinct magnitude of energy.

and when we measure the energy of light after it leaves
the mirror we find is has a distinct magnitude of energy.

and we find that the light has lost some tiny amount of energy.

but that loss of energy was because the light slowed as it
passed through the glass of the mirror.

we measure a distinct difference in the energy before and after.

and we find that energy was absorbed by the mirror but no energy was
exchanged , transferred , flip flopped , or whatever back to the flashlight.

this conflicts with what I replied about earlier.

Quote:
If you can measure it and it changes from one time to the next time then energy was exchanged.


this is a clear example of a one way event.

flashlight ---> mirror

the flashlight transferred light to the mirror.
the mirror then charged a slight toll to the light for passage.

but there is no trade agreement between the flashlight and the mirror
so the mirror does not pay the flashlight any percentage of the toll it charged and collected.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill S. #47664 01/17/13 10:35 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
The correct physics use of the term 'exchange' is also applicable in both these examples, Paul. Some of the EM energy is 'exchanged' thus, for example, imparting momentum to molecules of the mirror/Earth. The whole point is, one needs to be clear about the distinction between the 'transfer' of EM energy from the source, and its eventual 'exchange' into other manifestations of energy. The definitions are clear enough in physics, just as they are in general language. There's no need for the overdose of BS here - no reference to our jocular friend smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
paul #47665 01/17/13 10:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul


the flashlight requires energy
the mirror does not require energy.

so if we measure the energy of the light before it enters
the mirror we find it has a distinct magnitude of energy.

and when we measure the energy of light after it leaves
the mirror we find is has a distinct magnitude of energy.

and we find that the light has lost some tiny amount of energy.

but that loss of energy was because the light slowed as it
passed through the glass of the mirror.

we measure a distinct difference in the energy before and after.

and we find that energy was absorbed by the mirror but no energy was
exchanged , transferred , flip flopped , or whatever back to the flashlight.

this conflicts with what I replied about earlier.

Quote:
If you can measure it and it changes from one time to the next time then energy was exchanged.


this is a clear example of a one way event.

flashlight ---> mirror

the flashlight transferred light to the mirror.
the mirror then charged a slight toll to the light for passage.

but there is no trade agreement between the flashlight and the mirror
so the mirror does not pay the flashlight any percentage of the toll it charged and collected.



There is no exchange between the flashlight and mirror in this scenario. Battery to bulb, bulb makes heat and light.

Light hits mirror, most bounces off, some is absorbed and converted to heat.

The mirror does need energy. Without light, a mirror is fairly useless. In regards to it reflecting light, it does not do so with 100% efficiency. Even small amounts of energy count as an exchange.

The light, flash light, mirror, battery, air, everything can be seen as it's own entity of particles.

To achieve a direct correlation between the mirror and flashlight, you would have to look at all the dozens of other exchanges that happen simultaneously. The correlation may not be immediately apparent, but it IS there.

Even reflecting energy (from any medium) results in an exchange. Nothing is 100%.

Last edited by Neohippy; 01/17/13 10:47 PM.

Laziness breeds innovation
Neohippy #47666 01/17/13 11:31 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
The light, flash light, mirror, battery, air, everything can be seen as it's own entity of particles......

.....Even reflecting energy (from any medium) results in an exchange. Nothing is 100%.


Hopefully, no one will argue with this, in essence, but I agree that we have become bogged down in semantics.

Perhaps we need to take velocity, mass and the Higgs field to another thread and agree on our English usage right at the start.


There never was nothing.
paul #47667 01/17/13 11:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Bill, one has to wonder if Nicoll's specific choice of narrative was in any way influenced by his having been the owner of a roll-playing game store.

Perhaps the English with which he was acquainted in such an environment, in US, would have had a degree of originality foreign to its native habitat. laugh


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47668 01/18/13 12:20 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthe...e/#.UPiRrGf9Gtw

Interesting article, but

Quote:
As great of a genius as Einstein was....


on the subject of the English language; where did the "of" come from?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47669 01/18/13 12:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
The "of" comes from common usage of the phrase. We say,"...as much of a genius..." or "...as much of a clown..." in common speech, it is a way of comparing things that are superlative in their occurrence without comparing them to any one specific item or individual. I could say, for example, "As much of a pain as my oldest brother was, I'm sorry he died of cancer," and it would be the correct usage.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Bill S. #47670 01/18/13 12:54 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Okay I am going to go to the deep end and explain why the concept is important and why we have two camps on this.

Paul wants a very black and white world in which things either are or are not and the problem is does the world really look like that. In everyday terms this is the is there such thing as "no chance".

We have an annecdote in culture that the odds of heads/tails is not really 50/50 the coin can land on its side, the coin be grabbed by a bird in flight. There are thousands of incredibly unlikely events but they definitely have a probability that extremely small but they are not zero.

In QM the defintion that something has "zero probabilty" has special meaning it means it is implicitly forbidden and that it is a structural law or the universe.

In Pauls example there is weird quamtum effects such as quantum tunnelling going on as the photon of light is ejected from a LED light or a light bulb whichever it is and similarly there will be quantum tunnelling etc as the light beam hits the mirror.

All things being equal Paul's guess and want to put a black/white decision in place will work correctly most times but he hasn't accounted for QM tunneling etc because he doesn't know about them.

The probability between the mirror and the bulb interacting is "not zero" it is only close to zero and it is therefore not a universal boundary law.

This whole argument explains why QM confounds people and why QM continues to defy people using classic physics. At the heart of this argument is not english or definition it is QM versus Classic physics.

Paul won't budge because he wants black/white solid and real and I can't budge because QM defines a fuzzy bouncey world it's not an english semantic argument it is deep seated perception of the world argument.

If Paul wants his black/white world that is fine but it looks like Rede has understood it and so my teaching is done to those who want to listen.

The memo for the day to the science types is a directional energy transfer impies "Zero chance" of the reverse and is not something you wield lightly because it implies a universal structural law .... that is you better may dam sure it really does have "zero chance".

So lets move on.

Last edited by Orac; 01/18/13 01:21 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 13 of 17 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5